BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: MrNickRo on October 31, 2013, 11:06:04 AM
-
We recently clinched one of four roll off spots in out scratch league and I'm curious as to what kind of prize fund we have to look forward to.
Prize fund is roughly $11 of the weekly lineage and there are 15 teams with 5 people per team. This would equate to about 26,400 as the year end prize fund. There is also a .50 cent penalty for bowling 20 pins under your average, so this buffs the fund slightly.
It's fairly competitive, so I'm guessing the difference in payouts will be higher accordingly. Anybody ever been in a similarly sized league/prize fund and remember what the payouts were like?
We are guaranteed at least 4th at this point.
-
Usually a prize fund is voted on by the league base within the first few weeks of bowling. Our league has 15 teams of 5 and first place is paying $5000 out of a total of a $30,000 prize fund.
Also how did you get to have fines for bowling below your average? That's a rule i'm suprised anyone voted to pass. While I like it i'm just surprised everyone buoght into it.
-
There is also a .50 cent penalty for bowling 20 pins under your average, so this buffs the fund slightly.
Why would a league do this? This would severely penalize anyone who is in a slump and could also be exploited by changing conditions so that scores are forced low enough to make many bowlers pay more.
-
This is our first year in the league and the rule has been in since before we got there. I think it's a fun rule. The .50 goes to the prize fund and it's only .50. We have a cap of 1050, so it may be just a small deterrent to sandbagging.
I have no problem with the rule, but I've only had to pay once so far :)
-
At my bowling center, you would have gotten a different answer a few years ago. It seems lately the leagues are becoming more and more flat in payouts instead of top heavy. I understand that philosophy for fun mixed leagues, but our league is suppose to be the most competitive league in the house, a Peterson point men's league. We pay $22 a night and the winner of the league last year didn't make as much as they paid.
Maybe I am used to the old days, but it seems no one is willing to give the winners of the league a lot of money. They want to make sure they make as much as possible in the event they don't do as well as expected.
-
There is also a .50 cent penalty for bowling 20 pins under your average, so this buffs the fund slightly.
Why would a league do this? This would severely penalize anyone who is in a slump and could also be exploited by changing conditions so that scores are forced low enough to make many bowlers pay more.
50 cents is a severe penalty?? Now if it was 5 bucks then it might be as you could possible look at losing $15 more a night. you could bowl 20 pins under your average every week and only end up paying 52.50 extra. I love the rule!!! Would love it in our league!
-
I love when our envelope has change in it. I think it's hilarious. If you are 20 under all three games, it's two bucks total.
-
At my bowling center, you would have gotten a different answer a few years ago. It seems lately the leagues are becoming more and more flat in payouts instead of top heavy. I understand that philosophy for fun mixed leagues, but our league is suppose to be the most competitive league in the house, a Peterson point men's league. We pay $22 a night and the winner of the league last year didn't make as much as they paid.
Maybe I am used to the old days, but it seems no one is willing to give the winners of the league a lot of money. They want to make sure they make as much as possible in the event they don't do as well as expected.
Same trend going on here, and I think it's a wrong move. Simply put: Fun Leagues and Competitive Leagues should not be mixed. In a F-L, you would expect a flattened prize distribution, but not so much in a C-L.
How and why is this trend taking hold? At my House, it started with a big, independent league's membership vote (the majority of 28 5-member teams, 140 players). This league immediately lost 6 teams, the "competitors" for lack of a better description. But then the House followed suit when organizing it's own leagues for this year, and one of those is where 4 of the "lost" teams ended up . . . but not happily because of the same problem. The "competitors" then asked the House to form a separate league, but the House refused on the basis of "too few players". Now, with only 10 weeks of 34 played, a number of these players are voicing discontent and wondering where else they might go next year.
Side Note: It's not the money distribution that's the actual problem!
—————
Off-Subject, kind of: Two years ago, there were two 36-lane B-Zones within a mile of one another, both local and full of leagues. One closed due to lease issues. The remaining one assumed their lanes would then be overflowing. But guess what?: not much changed! Nobody knows where all the lost players went. I think they simply quit bowling, because typical league bowlers are a pretty finicky bunch, i.e., if they don't get what they want, they're likely to just quit the sport.
-
I bowl in the only scratch league in allegedly my state. Its super competitive and unfortunately everyone picks the flat payout. It boggles my mind. You figure the more competitive the lauge the more people would want to reward the good bowlers/themselves for doing good. I just don't understand it
-
I bowl in the only scratch league in allegedly my state. Its super competitive and unfortunately everyone picks the flat payout. It boggles my mind. You figure the more competitive the lauge the more people would want to reward the good bowlers/themselves for doing good. I just don't understand it
The reason maybe to SAVE the league. If the prize fund is FRONT LOADED it MAYBE a third of the teams would drop out!
-
I bowl in the only scratch league in allegedly my state. Its super competitive and unfortunately everyone picks the flat payout. It boggles my mind. You figure the more competitive the lauge the more people would want to reward the good bowlers/themselves for doing good. I just don't understand it
The reason maybe to SAVE the league. If the prize fund is FRONT LOADED it MAYBE a third of the teams would drop out!
My suggestion was to split the league. The idea was to keep all the bowlers in the house, a main concern for everyone involved. The prize fund monies would be split too, of course, but I wasn't convinced that a loaded top-end was doing us any good any more than the flattened payouts. As it turned out, we lost a few good teams. Replacements were found, but not with equivalent talent. This raised yet another controversy, which is the validity of handicaps and how they should be applied. My answer to this was to create divisions within the league — Red, White and Blue, each having a tight range of qualifying averages — which equalizes the competition and doesn't affect the total amount of the prize fund, only how it's distributed. It's a darn good idea and the details aren't hard to iron out. The problem is getting bowlers and Houses to think outside the box in order to survive. I got sick of hearing, " . . . but we've never done it that way . . ." as some bowlers went somewhere else or just quit.
-
Getting back to MrNickRo's original question about prize fund distribution. (Percentages are based upon Total Prize Fund Balance):
In 2011/12, a fall/winter handicap league considered the following distribution schedules. This league had 28 Teams of 5 members each, playing 34 weeks.
Scenario #1
Teams, Final Positions based upon Games Won = 70%
Handicap Awards = 14.5%
Scratch Awards = 14.5%
MIB, Men = .05%
MIB, Women = .05%
Scenario #2
Teams, Final Positions based upon Games Won = 75%
Handicap Awards = 12%
Scratch Awards = 12%
MIB, Men = .05%
MIB, Women = .05%
Handicap Awards: Team High Series; Team High Game; Men's High Game; Men's High Series; Women's High Game; Women's High Series.
Scratch Awards: (same as above)
Corporate House Lineage Fees were 75% of Gross Revenue.
In comparison, another league of the same description (same everything as above) but at an Independent House, the Total Prize Fund Amount was $7,000 more — but I don't have their distribution figures.
The Independent House also put out a Fresh and Consistent Shot every time (the Corporate didn't), and charged nothing for handling the scoring (which was an additional $500 cost at the Corporate House).
————————
Of particular note:
This year, at a 12-lane Independent House (very clean but with old wood lanes, ancient scoring displays, overhead returns, and rugged seating), there is a very competitive handicap league of 10 teams at 5 members each, celebrating their 25th consecutive year of play. For years on end they've had a waiting list of teams wanting (sometimes begging) to get in. I was lucky enough to play there just 1 year, but my 182 average (back then) wasn't up to snuff. I hated the fact that my ball got totally chewed up in 34 weeks of play, but regret having to leave. Current cost per 3-game series is $18 per player. So I repeat: It's not the money, but the level of competition that seems to be more important. I have no idea how they distribute their prize fund now, but I recall it being top-heavy on the first 3 teams and then paying out to the bottom on an even scale. My team came in 6th, by the way.
-
Scenario #1
Teams, Final Positions based upon Games Won = 70%
Handicap Awards = 14.5%
Scratch Awards = 14.5%
MIB, Men = .05%
MIB, Women = .05%
Scenario #2
Teams, Final Positions based upon Games Won = 75%
Handicap Awards = 12%
Scratch Awards = 12%
MIB, Men = .05%
MIB, Women = .05%
Handicap Awards: Team High Series; Team High Game; Men's High Game; Men's High Series; Women's High Game; Women's High Series.
Scratch Awards: (same as above)
This to me is a huge problem. How can a prize committee honestly propose these two packages? What is the actual difference between these packages? I feel a prize committee should provide VARYING prize funds. The above options are the same thing.
Perhaps the 70% and 75% has a big difference in distribution, but I doubt it based on what I have seen.
-
Either of the two scenarios are a PRIZE FUND offering. Suggesting that 70 or 75% of the money be set aside for TEAM distribution tells you NOTHING!
I'm not sure what is meant by games won? Do you take the total games won and divide it into the 70/75% of the prize fund to develop a per point amount .. then multiple that by each teams winning points to get a distribution? Might be doable ..different but would only be bad if you have one team that DOESN'T LOSE!
-
Scenario #1
Teams, Final Positions based upon Games Won = 70%
Handicap Awards = 14.5%
Scratch Awards = 14.5%
MIB, Men = .05%
MIB, Women = .05%
Scenario #2
Teams, Final Positions based upon Games Won = 75%
Handicap Awards = 12%
Scratch Awards = 12%
MIB, Men = .05%
MIB, Women = .05%
Handicap Awards: Team High Series; Team High Game; Men's High Game; Men's High Series; Women's High Game; Women's High Series.
Scratch Awards: (same as above)
This to me is a huge problem. How can a prize committee honestly propose these two packages? What is the actual difference between these packages? I feel a prize committee should provide VARYING prize funds. The above options are the same thing.
Perhaps the 70% and 75% has a big difference in distribution, but I doubt it based on what I have seen.
To answer your first question, the general consensus of the league (by popular vote) was to weight the award money to the teams. The League or Board could have asked the Prize Committee to figure out a 60% to teams and 40% to individuals vs 65% to teams and 35% to individuals — but they didn't. (The P-C was doing what was asked of them by the Board, not the other way around).
To answer your second question: Put another way, the differences you see above is more money to individuals in Scenario #1 (personal achievements, @ 30%) vs less money to individual achievements in Scenario #2 (personal achievements @ 25%). The 5% difference doesn't seem like much until actual dollar amounts are plugged in. This was the first step in the decision making process.
The second step was deciding on the percentages awarded to the places of the teams, i.e., 1st Place and on down. Unfortunately, I can't find that breakdown, but generally: Team #1 gets $250 more than T-#2, T-#2 gets $200 more than T-#3, and T#3 gets $150 more than T-#4. From T#4 on down, there's a downward sliding progression of equal amounts, for example $50 less for each place.
The reason percentages are used, not actual dollar amounts, is because of drop-outs, which decreases actual gross dollar amounts at the end of the league's 34-weeks of play. Projecting payout amounts is one thing, but guaranteeing actual payouts is not possible. Thus the disclaimer ". . . as based upon XX# of participants".
The awards you see above are actual for that 2011/12 league. However, the league I'm in now has a lot more categories for individual recognitions. For example, both the scratch and handicap awards go 3 deep each. I haven't seen the actual percentages, or I'd share them, too.
All this is from my neck of the woods, and it seems disagreeable to you, so I have to ask, How have your leagues differed? I'm sincerely interested in knowing how others do all this.
——————
JF has posted that "the percentages mean nothing", and maybe others agree. I suggest creating in a hypothetical spread sheet of your own. Start out with the actual number of players in your current league; multiply that number by the weekly cost per player; multiply that sum by the number of weeks. You now have the Projected Total Income in a dollar amount. Subtract the House lineage fees and any hard costs, such as secretarial services, etc. You now have what should be the Projected Prize Fund Total. Now split everything up using the Team and Individual Categories and percentages of your choice. The dollar amounts shown will then, in fact, mean something to you. :)
-
Either of the two scenarios are a PRIZE FUND offering. Suggesting that 70 or 75% of the money be set aside for TEAM distribution tells you NOTHING!
My definition of a prize fund recommendation from a committee is to define how much will be giving to each team(as per their standing at end of season) as well as the amounts to be giving to individual accomplishments. A percentage separating individual awards and team reward should have been considered when developing the PRIZE LIST! If what you say is TRUE that the committee gave what was requested of them .. you have only the officers of the league to blame .. The committed did half their job and it was not something that should be offered for a vote to the League.
That's my opinion .. which is not cut in stone!.
-
Additional comment: No one can predict changes (teams or individuals leaving) and it is always necessary for the Secretary (officers) to enhance the prize Fund accordingly at seasons end!
-
Joe Falco — No disrespect intended, but some of your statements are self-contradicting, your protests have already been addressed, and your last statement
Additional comment: No one can predict changes (teams or individuals leaving) and it is always necessary for the Secretary (officers) to enhance the prize Fund accordingly at seasons end!
is very confusing. What, exactly, do you mean by the necessity of league officers enhancing a Prize Fund at season's end?
Given your advanced years of league experience, you must have retained some past records as to actual league costs, how a Prize Fund was determined, what the Prize List distribution projections were, and the amounts paid at year's end.
If you would share the actual figures for just one league, I'm sure we can determine if your persistent whining that "percentages mean nothing" is valid or not.
-
RM, I understand the difference between the 70% and 75% values. The more money in the league, the larger the difference in allotted money the 5% represents.
Maybe my issue has more to do with my league's prize fund offerings and not so much yours. But the two offers you have are not what I would call significantly different. Especially if what you say about place amounts being somewhat set.
I am trying to locate my league's offers to show what I am referring to. As an example, if you assume the first place team gets one first place team award (game or series), the the offers only had a difference of $10 per person. That represents the spectrum of the prize funds. That to me is ridiculous.
-
RM, I understand the difference between the 70% and 75% values. The more money in the league, the larger the difference in allotted money the 5% represents.
Maybe my issue has more to do with my league's prize fund offerings and not so much yours. But the two offers you have are not what I would call significantly different. Especially if what you say about place amounts being somewhat set.
I am trying to locate my league's offers to show what I am referring to. As an example, if you assume the first place team gets one first place team award (game or series), the the offers only had a difference of $10 per person. That represents the spectrum of the prize funds. That to me is ridiculous.
I agree.
But, using that figure, we have to keep in mind $10 per person = $50 per 5-player team, and at 28 Teams the total difference is $1,400. Most league bowlers don't think about the math. They typically make assumptions and deem the dollar amounts acceptable or not, usually based upon past payouts.
I'm calculating and quoting percentages (from actual dollar amounts) only because the number of teams, players, fees and costs vary from league to league. That I'm not showing actual dollar amounts seems to be causing a perception problem, which is why I suggested creating a personal spreadsheet for anyone wanting to check out their own league's distribution schemes. The main thing is that the math is correct.
[My main gripe is that I had to repeatedly ask to see the final Sec/Treasurer's report from a league I was in last year. The officers didn't automatically publish the final distributions that were made and were not very cooperative in divulging them later on. Everyone showed up to grab their money, then left. I would think the report would be immediately available, as handout to anyone interested, but such is not the case.]
-
It is my understanding the actual payout amounts must be included in the prize funds when voted upon. I would never accept percentages as you have shown as a prize fund. Too much is unknown.
-
Quote from: JOE FALCO on November 05, 2013, 04:34:10 PM
Additional comment: No one can predict changes (teams or individuals leaving) and it is always necessary for the Secretary (officers) to enhance the prize Fund accordingly at seasons end!
is very confusing. What, exactly, do you mean by the necessity of league officers enhancing a Prize Fund at season's end?
CONFUSING? ..If a prize fund is agreed upon in the 3 rd week of league .. and during the term of the league there are changes due to teams/individuals quitting .. someone has to adjust the prize fund distribution at the end of league. Secretary/treasurer/president should be responsible to make changes. Why are you interested in payouts of other leagues? Each league has a committee to create a prize fund to be voted on by the league.
What you presented as a percentage is only separating team money from individual awards. My comment is that is NOT a prize fund that I would put to my league for a vote .. it tell the league NOTHING! If I was developing a Prize Fund I would start by separating the amounts for individuals and then spread the remaining fund to teams. I would make sure that the amounts set aside for individuals doesn't EXCEED what individuals are receiving as members of a TEAM.(Example: !st place team gets $150 per man .. don't give high average $175)
I think you are making too much of this .. bowlers assigned tasks of distribution aren't accountants. They are giving the amounts of available funds and asked to create .. exactly what is your goal? You want the prize fund top heavy? You want individual awards to be HIGH? Does dividing the prize fund to separate piles for individuals and teams give you anything? Perhaps you can explain what that does for the league members?
-
In his defense Joe, your original comment made is sound like you thought the league officers were responsible of "making up" any monies lost due to teams/individuals quitting. Your new statement clarifies what I am sure all bowlers feel is required.
-
What I really wanted to know is what is common practice for distribution of prize funds to each place.
A % prize fund $'s to 1-4 for a hop heavy/evenly distributed prize fund.
I believe ours will be on the top heavy end, so I was curious what type of distribution I might expect.
-
JOE — How about this . . .
Revision of your statement: "No one can predict changes (teams or individuals leaving) and it is always necessary for the Secretary (officers) to enhance ADJUST the prize Fund accordingly at seasons end!" Because I already covered this issue, I became confused as to your meaning.
Also, I apologize—to all—for my own poor wording in not being specific about the percentages. Indeed, projected actual dollar amounts were shown to the membership, and they were subject membership approval plus the above noted adjustments at the season's end.
I did not include the actual figures because every league is different; therefore, using the percentages was more relevant should anyone want to make comparisons between my league and their own — which, as I suggested, would be easier to calculate and compare using their own spreadsheet and their own league statisitcs.
What would be totally meaningless is for someone to demand seeing actual prize fund disbursements exclusively in dollar amounts! This is because doing so ignores fees and costs. For example, lets say BOWLER IGNORAMUS boasts that his team gets a whopping $5,000 for taking 1st Place, so he belittles BOWLER PEEWEE, who comes up short with his team's $1500 1st Place award. THIS MEANS NOTHING because it's unknown how much they are paying per week, nor what their respective lineage fees are. It could well turn out that PEEWEE is getting a lot more bang for his buck than IGNORAMUS. So, for actual comparison purposes, until IGNORAMUS figures out his own return percentages, he's really got nothing but a bowl of limp noodles against the hard facts that percentages represent.
Are we on the same page now? I hope so. ;D
-
What I really wanted to know is what is common practice for distribution of prize funds to each place.
I believe ours will be on the top heavy end, so I was curious what type of distribution I might expect.
Sorry. Got off subject, kind of.
I don't know that a "common practice" actually exists. However, your Sec or Treas ought to be able to give you a pretty good idea based upon the projected percentages and costs that we've been focusing on.
At any rate, Good Luck and Bowl Well!
Let us know how you come out!!!
-
Thanks, RM. I enjoy reading the argument. I know I can ask, but I was also curious about what other people were seeing around their leagues.
I'll sit back and enjoy.
-
I wish others would kick in at this point, but my experience is that few very bowlers go much beyond the dollar figures. It takes time and effort to gather facts and sort them out, so we'll have to wait and see what comes.
I've been in three types of leagues: One totally ran itself with its own officers, and the accounting was down to the penny with open books. The second kind, and there have been several like this, has officers that are dependent upon the House keeping track of the scores and have to go back to them if there's a question. I've found several big mistakes that otherwise would have gone unaddressed, and the books weren't easily opened. The third type is one that is exclusively run by the House, and here I often no longer even bother trying to keep track because of the problems that questions have raised. I try to stay clear of them.
My favorite House does not have the latter 2 negatives, so that's where I always bowl leagues that matter to me. There I get straight answers, often immediately, from a candid, fully open manager. If there's actually a mistake, she makes corrections on the spot and thanks me. That's not to say I go looking for errors. I don't. But I do keep track of things related to my team and ask questions when my numbers don't equate to the House reports.
-
Revision of your statement: "No one can predict changes (teams or individuals leaving) and it is always necessary for the Secretary (officers) to
enhance ADJUST the prize Fund accordingly at seasons end!" Because I already covered this issue, I became confused as to your meaning.
WOW!
-
Enhance - intensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value, or extent of.
Adjust - alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result.
Joe, based on the above definitions, I would go with "adjust" based on your replies.
-
If you are a prize fighter you use the jab to distract from a KO punch ... I think pointing out a word that was unacceptable to the reader was a distraction from the thought.
There are always changes to a league prize fund in 36 weeks .. some are minor others Major and that's why we have league officers to make ENHANCEMENTS/ADUSTMENTS!
-
I agree, the intent was understood. Though when discussing prize funds, I can see how one would want you to explain how the secretary/treasurer was required to increase the prize fund because of people or teams leaving.
And to make matters worse, you take offense to the want of the reader to clarify if you really meant "enhance". And one could also say you are using red text to distract from the fact you don't understand the difference between enhance and adjust.
Just sayin'
-
Enhance - intensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value, or extent of.
Adjust - alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result.
Still .. was the comment correct or are we still discussing the proper word? Funny how we can go on and on discussing a word when the whole subject was PRIZE FUND .. so to many it would have been much CLEARER if ADJUST was used instead of ENHANCE .. some people probable used their head and understood others would prefer to correct the word and disregard the comment .. again .. so what .. FAIL ME .. I'll take the subject over .. ::) ;D :'(
-
You guys are lame. I'm fairly certain you agree, so stop bickering.
-
STOPPED!
-
:)
-
:)